Crusty 1916 Walker upgrade to my Early Date Walker set
ThreeCentSilverFL
Posts: 1,681 ✭✭✭✭✭
I’ve come to realize, and appreciate that the early date Walkers should not be expected to come in blast white LOL. I enjoy the character that these earlier coins can have. I’m slowly working on my early date set and just added this one as an upgrade to my existing 1916 PCGS AU58. Very excited about now shifting focus to the early dates, if only a date-only set at first until I can fill it in. It will be a challenge, still need ‘21, ‘23 and ‘28. GTG if you’d like.
20
Comments
The coin seems to have wear on the high points of both the obverse and reverse so I will say AU58. It must have better eye-appeal than your other coin.
NICE!! AU 59 +!!
“I may not believe in myself but I believe in what I’m doing” ~Jimmy Page~
My Full Walker Registry Set (1916-1947):
https://www.ngccoin.com/registry/competitive-sets/16292/
+1
62 nice, they don’t come with skin often. If it has that deep dish glow luster it could do higher by a point.
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
I love it! Looks like an AU58 (or AU58+, whatever) to me.
In honor of the memory of Cpl. Michael E. Thompson
Very nice! I'm looking for a problem-free PCGS CAC 1916 AU58 for my first year type set.
What a great addition (upgrade)! That is a gorgeous example!!
“We are only their care-takers,” he posed, “if we take good care of them, then centuries from now they may still be here … ”
Todd - BHNC #242
Looks 63 to 64.
I have an ICG 62 and a PCGS 64. Great coins, and yours is nice.
58? great look!
If it isn't it should be, great example, great eye
Good looking example.
She's a beauty no matter the grade.
58+ but beats out many 64s in eye appeal.
I love the early Walkers with the matte, almost sandblasted look to the luster.
Gorgeous tone and color. Love it as a 58.
Jim
When a man who is honestly mistaken hears the truth, he will either quit being mistaken or cease to be honest....Abraham Lincoln
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.....Mark Twain
Nice WLH...looks a solid 58.... Cheers, RickO
58
Tough one.
Could go either way from 58 to 63.
I’m going with a 62.
Nice coin!
Happy, humble, honored and proud recipient of the “You Suck” award 10/22/2014
I'd say AU58. The early date walkers have great character to them. Only thing is they don't come fully struck. But they come with textured surfaces the later date short set Walkers don't have.
Thanks for the comments. PCGS gave it a 62 which I feel is appropriate.
As mentioned by others, the 1916 and 1917 Walkers have grainy, or matte fields that just don’t always have the full cartwheel luster of the later dates. I can appreciate both though, and in my opinion adds character to the series as a whole.
A bit hard to photo the subdued luster which I don’t think my OP pics really do. Here’s a full slab shot.
I am convinced the 1916p is a scarcer coin than either the 16s or 16d. The 16s might exceed it in higher grades but I see a dozen of slicks of the 16s for every 16p
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
@Crypto I Agree. And to further that, that ‘16-D usually never fully struck up due to the Denver mint spacing dies a bit further apart to elongate die service life. According to Bruce Fox. Here’s my flat ‘16-D
@ThreeCentSilverFL I knew what I was looking at, it is a very nice 1916 of an issue that doesn't come around often let alone nice. I had a VF set of walkers that killed me. I cant imagine a highend set. Man I love Obv mint marks though, nice 16d
11.5$ Southern Dollars, The little “Big Easy” set
No real wear or circulation, just a little stacking friction on obverse.
Here’s a 16D with a decent strike for the issue. The head is weak, but the central detail and skirt details are all there. Note the stubby thumb and shallower skirt lines that these early issues had, along with the matte surfaces.
Interesting observation.
The 16D has a mintage quite a bit higher than the P or S, and is relatively "common" for an early walker. I believe the S and P to be comparable in middle circ grades, but in AU and MS, the S is definitely scarcer.
I'm not sure of the populations of 'slicks', but was quite surprised to see AG '16S walkers selling for $50-80 on eBay recently. I had assumed they could be had for a modest premium over melt - boy was I off!
@Walkerguy21D the ‘16 D was apparently struck with the dies spaced further apart than specified. Denver reportedly did this to extend die life. Not sure if this was the norm at the 1916 Denver mint, but would explain that MM being generally weaker then Philadelphia or San Francisco.
I really like the look of this 1916. Although I might think differently if I saw the coin in hand, it looks like clear central rub that suggests that the grade should probably be AU. It probably should be AU62 rather than MS62. If there is no wear down the middle of the obverse, then I have troubles understanding why this coin is not higher than 62.
In any event, regardless of assigned grade, the coin is a keeper.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
Photos are tough. Here’s my 1916-P in AU58 for comparison:
Let's take a step back...
The 16D had over 1 million coins struck. Probably numerous dies, over X months.
Next, Fox says "It is believed the Denver mint established a policy to preserve die life by setting the dies a little further apart than normal. This caused a wide variance in striking characteristics
".
So, where did he get this info? Walter Breen? LOL.....there is certainly nothing here that indicates all or even most 16D coins are flatly struck. Assuming it's true, it may indicate that coins from some runs show less details. In general they are certainly better struck than most of the S mint coins post '39, among other dates, etc.
The 16D you posted shows significant wear and luster break, not due to die spacing, but due to time in circulation, and I'm guessing it was probably fairly well struck when it left the mint.
The grainy surfaces were on the artists original models & actually he objected to having mirrorlike more polished surfaces.